On 05/01/17 01:03, Jeremy Rowley via Public wrote:
Thank you everyone for the feedback so far. Attached is an updated draft
based on the comments provided. Apologies for the lack of redlining, but
I reformatted the entire section into various permitted entries (thanks
Gerv) which made the entire thing more readable. Let me know what you think.
<snip>
*7.1.4.2.1.4. otherName with SRVName { 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0.18.8.7 } type-id*
...
A Technically Constrained Subordinate CA
Certificate that includes a technical constraint for SRVNames MUST
include permitted name subtrees and MAY include excluded name subtrees.
Hi Jeremy.
I expect your intent is for the "MUST include permitted...and MAY
include excluded" clause to apply specifically to SRVNames.
However, as written, this sentence could be complied with by including a
permitted name subtree for (for example) rfc822Name, because the "MUST
include permitted...and MAY include excluded" clause applies to the TCSCC.
Also, I think it's confusing to refer to multiple subtrees in the
singular - "a technical constraint".
--
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
